Comparing the Effectiveness and Safety of MedAn with the Nishikawa Blade and UE Videolaryngoscopes for Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the MedAn videolaryngoscope with the Nishikawa blade (MedAn) vs the UE videolaryngoscope (UE) for intubation with a left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube (LDLT) in patients with normal airways. Material/Methods We randomly categorized 106 patients scheduled to undergo elective thoracic surgery with LDLT for one-lung ventilation into 2 groups: the UE group (Group UE) and the MedAn group (Group MedAn), using the MedAn or UE for LDLT intubation. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation. The Cormack-Lehane classification of laryngeal view was the key secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes included first-attempt and overall intubation success rates, laryngoscopy time, LDLT placement time, operators’ subjective evaluation of videolaryngoscopes, hemodynamic changes during videolaryngoscopic intubation, and adverse outcomes. Results The time to successful intubation and LDLT placement time of Group MedAn were 42.0 (32.35, 47.0) s and 23.0 (18.0, 26.0) s, and it was shorter than in Group UE (median, 42 s vs 49 s, 23 s vs 30 s, P <0.001). Group MedAn had a better laryngeal view ( P =0.03) and less subglottic/tracheal mucosal injury ( P <0.001) than Group UE. Moreover, the operators’ subjective grading of ease of laryngoscopy, quality of view, and ease of LDLT placement were higher in Group MedAn than in Group UE ( P <0.05). Conclusions Compared with the UE, the MedAn could reduce the intubation time and provide a better laryngeal view and sufficient intubation space for safer LDLT intubation in patients with normal airways.